The court held that a trial court must provide reasons for its decisions, especially regarding party impleadment, to ensure justice and clarity in legal proceedings.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2024 in I.A. No. 2289 of 2022 in O.S. No. 10 of 2015 on the file of learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘the trial Court’), wherein, the petition filed under Order I Rule 10(2) and (4) of the CPC read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rule of Practice and Section 151 of the CPC, with a prayer to implead the petitioner and respondent No. 11 as defendant Nos. 4 and 5 and to delete the paragraph No. 19 of the plaint and to substitute the same with a fresh paragraph, has been allowed.

3. The background facts leading to filing of the Civil Revision Petition are that the deceased respondent No. 1 and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed suit in O.S. No. 10 of 2015 for delivery of vacant peaceful possession of 1373.5 square feet of super built-up commercial area along with proportional undivided share of land in the building being constructed in the suit schedule property towards their share in the agreed 11,000 square feet in terms of the sale deed bearing document No. 4643 of 1995 dated 11.08.1995 and agreement dated 11.08.1995 and also under document No. 4124 of 2008 dated 14.09.2008. During pendency of the suit, the deceased respondent No. 1 died and her LR’s were brought on record as the respondent Nos. 4 to 8. The defendants remained ex parte in the suit and the matter was coming up for evidence of P.W. 1. Till that point of time the respondents/plaintiffs were under the impression that the respondent No. 7 is constructing the building over the suit schedule property. However, subsequently they have learnt that the respondent No.9 has transferred the rights to M/s. MPM Hotels Limited (earlier M/s. MMVL Hotels Limited) under registered sale deed document No. 1854 of 2007, alleging that it has become owner of the suit schedule property under sale deeds bearing document Nos. 2783 of 2000 and 3304 of 2000. The said M/s.MPM Hotels Limited, has further created third party interest by executing a development agreement-cum-GPA bearing document No. 176 of 2016 in favour of M/s. Vasavi Nirmaan Private Limited. On the basis of said development agreement, M/s. Vasavi Nirmaan Private Limited, started construction of a 15 storied commercial complex in the suit schedule property. The. Respondents/plaintiffs have pleaded that M/s.MPM Hotels Limited and M/s. Vasavi Nirmaan Private Limited, are claiming interest over the situated property in which the original defendants have undertaken to allot 11,000 square feet of commercial space with proportionate undivided share of the land. The M/s.MPM Hotels Limited and M/s. Vasavi Nirmaan Private Limited are pendent lite transferees and they are likely to resist the decree on the pretext that they are not parties to the suit and as such they are not bound by the decree. Therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and since M/s.MPM Hotels Limited and M/s. Vasavi Nirmaan Private Limited, are necessary parties for the purpose of implementing the decree, the implead petition is filed to implead the proposed parties as they defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the main suit. When said application came up for hearing, the trial Court has passed the following docket order dated 01.02.2024:

“It is seen that respondent No.3 counter already treated as nil and steps of respondent No.4 already taken and respondent No.4 is already been set ex parte. Heard the petitioner counsel. The I.A. is allowed and respondent No